linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] Add the latent

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAGXu5jJ+seDJgknrFTNVw8A3CuVkjnKH6LFfti5zyJgFTM2q+A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Jun 2016 09:13:52 -0700
From:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>,
	"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
	<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
	PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>,
	Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>,
	Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
	linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	bart.vanassche@...disk.com, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] Add the latent_entropy gcc plugin

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 5:58 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 08:41:19PM +0200, Emese Revfy wrote:
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/scripts/gcc-plugins/latent_entropy_plugin.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,639 @@
>> +/*
>> + * Copyright 2012-2016 by the PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>
>> + * Copyright 2016 by Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>
>> + * Licensed under the GPL v2
>> + *
>> + * Note: the choice of the license means that the compilation process is
>> + *       NOT 'eligible' as defined by gcc's library exception to the GPL v3,
>> + *       but for the kernel it doesn't matter since it doesn't link against
>> + *       any of the gcc libraries
>
> I remember we used to have architectures that actually linked against
> libgcc.  Isn't that the case anymore?

There are a few, but they don't (and won't) select HAVE_GCC_PLUGINS.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS & Brillo Security